There Are Now 52 Exlanations for the "Pause" in Global Warming

Then why are there so many grants to the climate sciences?

 

Right? You'd think if the science is settled, then grants would no longer be needed to justify a position. The mere fact that there are still grants is justification that the science is not settled. That would be a correlation!!!!!

 

Because global economic damage caused by climate change is estimated to be hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. There is a lot of money in being able to predict where these damages are going to happen, when, and how we can prevent it in the short term. Science that can be used to save money typically has no trouble finding grants.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because the science on whether or not man caused this climate change is settled doesn't mean that we know everything there is to know about how climate change will effect us, when where and why. There is a lot of money in knowing that kind of information. So there is a lot of grants to help research it.

 

ok Francis!!!!!

 

So why didn't they predict the longest period in recorded history of no major hurricane landfalls in the US based on AGW?

 

Because we don't know all the inner complexities of climate change and how it will effect specific regions. All we know is that Man is causing climate change. We're working on understanding what climate change means exactly for us.

 

But the climate models we spend billions on are regional in nature. They are 3d gridded models with the model calculating the local climate within the grid. It then passes some parameters to other grids. If the models cant get the grids right than the models are false. The average of a climate model is an abstraction. Climate models don't deal with averages at all.

 

Yes. They are. They do their best with the science we have. But the science does not have a complete knowledge of all the complexities of climate. The science on whether or not man is causing climate change has a consensus. The science over what exact changes are going to happen and where is still debated and being heavily researched.

 

So you admit that the models don't work because tge climate has too many unknowns yet you claim that CO2 driving climate change has to be true becauae there is a concensus. A concensus that was reached in theg90s because for a brief time the CO2 centric models tracked observations. Now that the models upon which the concensus was built have failed we cannot go back and question the concensus. Your circular reasoning makes many a head spin.

 

The pause shows how much is not known including what man contributes or if it makes a difference.

 

The warming ability of green house gases is not one of those unknowns.

- - - Updated - - -

What man contributes to climate change is not an unknown. We know exactly how much heat is produced by green house gases and how much green house gases come from human sources.

 

Actually we don't. It is an hypothesis and considering the current failed predictions it is not known at all.

 

What an interesting perspective. We know EXACTLY how much heat is produced by green house gases? REALLY? I didn't think greenhouse gases PRODUCED heat? How much heat does a blanket produce? How many decimals can you calculate this to...I am FASCINATED by both the precision of this answer, and the idea that greenhouse gases themselves produce heat.

 

The experts disagree. You're clearly not an expert. A hypothesis is an untested guess. The greenhouse gas theory is a measured and predictable theory. Greenhouse gases are proven to reflect UV rays and thus cause an increase in heat. Therefore it's not a hypothesis. It's a working theory. Even the few scientists in the field that disagree with AGW would agree that greenhouse gases causes global warming.

- - - Updated - - -

It puts heat on this planet that wouldn't be there otherwise. Everyone loses when you play the semantics game. Just don't.

 

Which experts? Not all 'experts' agree. You certainly are not an expert either but then, you also don't read much other than the CAGW alarmist information.

 

Okay, now we really ARE venturing close to stupid. I'll go for the "wiki" method of education on this one because it isn't unreasonable.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Those of us who do it the scientific way are a bit sensitive to the idea that we just run around guessing at crap, and consider that sufficient effort to construct a hypothesis. Maybe that sort of half assed work is okay in the climate science world, but I doubt that is the norm within the rest of the scientific world.

I agree. The "blanket" does not cause the WARMING. Everyone knows this, so stop playing semantic games pretending otherwise.

 

They are unknown knowns, meaning we think we know but we don't!

The radiative efficiency and sensitivity of CO2 are values determined in the 70's, before we had extensive knowledge of other influence. Observed relationships between temperature and CO2 levels were used to derive at their forcing values. Don't believe me? Just look at any study citing CO2 sensitivity, follow the footnotes, and see how old the source material is.

 

We always hear of the bad thing co2 does, but never the good things. Well, with the higher levels of co2, the earth is undergoing a "greening" as we speak. For flora love co2. So the earth is getting greener, and that is a good thing. More greenery means more co2 will be pulled from the atmosphere and more oxygen expired. We will see plants growing in new places. Crops will produce more food for a growing population. So it seems that the earth is reacting in a good way to higher co2 levels and plant life will thrive even greater.

Perhaps the earth is using man and his fossil fuels to green up the earth so that she can feed the ever growing population, and to mess with this will cause more people to starve. So, perhaps we should leave it alone, and eventually we will get off of fossil fuels anyways, given the advancement in technology.

 

I'm done playing the semantics game with you. No one wins that game and I don't respect people who play it. Argue with yourself about choice of words.

- - - Updated - - -

97% of the experts. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Is one of those 52 excuses "we were wrong"?

 

Ah, the old failed 97% meme. Always trot out appeal to authority logical fallacy if all else fails.

 

And yet another example of failure to understand logical fallacies

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

That logical fallacy only works if the authority I'm providing isn't actually an authority. 97% if the climate field is an authority. Especially in answer to your question about which experts agree with AGW. I answered you. 97% of them. That's not appealing to authority. That's answering your question.

 

97% is meaningless and a bogus number being repeated over and over. If you understood science, you would understand that.